263

Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah.

It was bizarre. The US lost it’s damn mind and went full on crazy. I remember asking what Iraq did and getting called a traitor. (They were mostly Saudis? And Saudis funded?)

I also remember bejng asked why I wasn’t joining up… like, dude, let me graduate highschool first…

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Knowing now that Bin-Laden had been in Pakistan and we kinda knew almost where for a long time really makes the Iraq invasion so much worse.

I went and protested it in Copley Square the night before we invaded Iraq. I’m glad I did it, but it seemed to do fuck all. Possibly lead to Barack Obama’s presidency, which I’m happy about, but that in turn may have lead Trump’s as well.

I can’t help wonder how different the world would have been with Gore as president. Even social media may have been regulated differently with a moderately (or even slightly) tech savvy administration, though that’s probably a stretch.

Edit: Wft autocorrect; Batak Obamass? Really?

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

I can’t help wonder how different the world would have been with Gore as president. Even social media may have been regulated differently with a moderately (or even slightly) tech savvy administration, though that’s probably a stretch.

It's not a stretch. The antitrust lawsuits brought by nine states and the Justice Department against Microsoft was made to simply go away under the Bush administration. Our technology would probably look very different today without Microsoft's monopoly, and without that who knows what the rest of the map would look like?

[-] livus@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

@nilloc I went and protested too, there was a big march in New Zealand and we stayed out of the "coalition of the willing" who invaded. We were lucky we had a very strong centre-left leader at the time.

The Gore alternate timeline is interesting. Would we have had less pollution by now?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I can’t help wonder how different the world would have been with Gore as president. Even social media may have been regulated differently with a moderately (or even slightly) tech savvy administration, though that’s probably a stretch.

I can't even imagine. I think 9/11 would have still happened... I don't think they'd have caught it; and I don't think we'd have just... not responded.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago

That’s probably the case, though I think smarter people who didn’t already want to invade the Middle East to avenge their daddy’s name (before 9/11 strangely) might have heeded the multiple intelligence warnings better.

I hate Nader for his spoiling that election in particular, but he wanted locked cockpit doors way before 9/11. Gore may have listened to his advise but probably not in time.

I think we also would have sanctioned Saudi Arabia and worked with Pakistan instead of the bullshit that happened instead.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The thing was… that at the time, locking the door wasn’t really the issue.

The policy at the time was to allow the hijacker’s to take over because there were hundreds of hostages on board. Before 9/11, nobody thought they’d take the plane and crash it into stuff.

Similar to how cashiers/bank tellers are taught to comply with robbers. The expectation is that doing what they want is safer for everyone - and the assumption was they’d want cash.

Post 9/11, those assumptions changed, and now pilots are instructed to let the hostages die instead of opening up, because its likely that, failing getting down to where a response team could get on board, everyone is going to die anyhow and letting the bad guys control the plane means substantially more deaths.

[-] livus@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Yikes. The pressure must have been really intense. I'm in NZ and I lost a bunch of US internet friends (some I'd met irl) for not being enthusiastic about attacking Afghanistan.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

In the immediate family, it wasn’t too terrible. It was a certain uncle, that I never speak to any more thinking I should be signing up. (he’s as deep into MAGA world as anyone, the only reason he wasn’t at Jan 6 was he’s too broke to go.)

Most everyone else kind of would just… not talk about it? By the time i did graduate, all the fervor wore off into a kind of … refusal to accept we’d been lied to? I dunno weird times.

I will say this. It definitely colors my understanding of what’s going on with Palestine. Seems to be that history is rhyming again.

[-] livus@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
263 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19089 readers
1668 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS